to be exercised upon a consideration of all the circumstances of each particular case." That the initial contract was a fair one was not in dispute, Field noted: The sale price ($22,500) was much higher than the assessed value ($15,000), and no one could have foreseen that property values would more than double over the next 10 years. The majority held that if "the contract [is] fair in its terms," discretion regarding relief may be exercised "if ... subsequent events, or even ... collateral circumstances... would work hardship or injustice to either of the parties." "[E]stablished doctrines and settled principles of equity" should be employed to determine the relief to be imposed, and the "specific relief will be granted when it is apparent from a view of all the circumstances of the particular case that it will subserve the ends of justice, and that it will be withheld when from a like view it appears that it will produce hardship or injustice to either of the parties." Two issues now confronted the Court. The first was the nature of the "cash" which the contract specified be used as the down payment in 1854. Justice Field concluded that "cash" meant gold coin, as no other form of legal tender existed in 1854. The creation of paper currency subsequent to the 1854 contract did not alleviate Willard of the requirement that the down payment be made in "cash" (e.g., gold coin), Field held. But the issue did not end there. Had Willard acted in good faith in offering the U.S. Notes? If not, then no relief was likely: The contract had expired, and Willard had not acted in a timely fashion to secure his rights under it by submitting a cash down-payment. But if he had acted in good faith, then Willard would be able to seek relief from courts of equity. The constitutionality of the National Banking Act was not at issue, the Court said, because the issue before the Court was not whether paper currency constituted "cash" but whether Willard acted in good faith (e.g., had assumed in good faith that U.S. Notes constitute cash, as Congress had said they did). Field laid out extensive reasons for why Willard had acted in good faith: Congress had declared the Notes to be legal tender for all debts, and the National Banking Act made no distinction between debts contracted before or after